My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[Robin]

Yes, you are about the fifth person to make this claim. It's a theory which is supported by precisely no evidence at all. It is entirely politically-motivated (i.e. it is "pseudoscience.") You are trying to find a way to justify the claim that "homosexuality is normal", not trying to provide the answer to a genuine question about human reproductive strategies.

I think you are projecting there. As far as I can see it was you who brought up the whole 'normality' thing.

I don't even know what normality means, so don't blame us for the bee in your bonnet.

I can if I am an evolutionary biologist.

No you couldn't, even if you were an evolutionary biologist. All you could talk about was what got selected for, what got selected against and what happens independently of the selection mechanism.

When you start anthropomorphising the whole process you start to make the type of illogical statements that I pointed out above.

 

[quarky]

Some major drift in this thread. What happened to consciousness?
Homosexuality needs its own thread.

(Holy cow, I didn't think I'd ever accuse a thread of drift, being a contributor, normally, of driftiness.)

I'm going to my room now, to sit in the corner.

 

[Robin]

Why hasn't Cystic Fibrosis been "evolved out"?

Nobody knows for sure, but there are various theories. For example it has been suggested that being a carrier of the disease provides resistance to certain other conditions.

If those other conditions were greater killers than CF then it would have been an evolutionary advantage for the particular population to have this mutation.

 

[!Kaggen]

Now I am really confused are you labeling all brain events (place holder) as thoughts, there are sensations, perceptions, memory and many, many other things.

No, I am specifically concentrating on thinking and the resultant thoughts as something that I consciously and actively participate in.

technically you can not really have thoughst without thinking.
So some claification might be in order. Do you mean a single thread of verbal cognition or do you mean a lack of verbal cognition?

What I mean is the origin of verbal cognition.

!Kaggen to prime the pump, why is verbal cognition concering awareness your defining trait for consciousness.

It seems to me there is more to the general usage of the term than that. Such as the 'the unconscious body lay on the floor'.

In review I should perhaps clarify that consciousness as related to my usage of the terms thinking and thought could be classified as self-consciousness. I think the term self-consciousness is double speak, but it might avoid confusion to those who use consciousness and awareness interchangeably.
Awareness for me has more to do with sensations as related to ones environment and self-awareness as sensations related to oneself. Consciousness than is something more than just an awareness which implies a passive activity. Consciousness is an active process. Classifying consciousness then as awareness of ones thoughts might then first appear to contradict this until it is noted that thoughts do not appear out of nowhere and need to be actively produced. Based on this then only a thinking being (having verbal cognition) is self-conscious (using the updated term). Whereas just having a nervous system qualifies for having an awareness.

So to answer the question

!Kaggen to prime the pump, why is verbal cognition concering awareness your defining trait for consciousness.

To quote Wittgenstein
7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

 

[westprog]

Thanks, I would take exception to this. I don't think it happens as much as you do and I would make a Tu Quoque argument if I were inclined (the problem has to do with people and not atheists). I'll withdraw the straw man aspersion.

If you're going to agree with me twice in one week people will start to talk.

 

[westprog]

Yes, you are about the fifth person to make this claim. It's a theory which is supported by precisely no evidence at all.

The fact that the behaviour exists in a species that has survived at least shows that it is at least possible that it has benefits.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The fact that the behaviour exists in a species that has survived at least shows that it is at least possible that it has benefits.

No it doesn't...

 

[RandFan]

No it doesn't...

Yes it does. For crying in the dark. westprog's statement is as commonsense as can be. It's not saying that it demonstrates a benifit only that it is possible that it has benifits. Of course it's possible.

 

[Robin]

Yes it does. For crying in the dark. westprog's statement is as commonsense as can be. It's not saying that it demonstrates a benifit only that it is possible that it has benifits. Of course it's possible.

Oh well, see it from his point of view. With all the questions he now has to evade he can only stay in the thread with vague unfinished sentences.

I still haven't heard back why he thinks that the alleged preference of modern gays for surrogacy and adoption services is relevant to a debate about our evolutionary history.

Or whether he thinks heterosexuality is a perversion.

Or responded to my point about more reproduction not always being a survival benefit.

 

[rocketdodger]

Humans do NOT own this planet. We just think we do. "Wise Man"? Not wise enough.

So humans are not the dominant species on Earth?

That's funny, 'cause don't recall ever being cut down by a tree, or harvested by corn, or being hunted by a deer, or butchered by a cow, or trapped by a mouse, or netted by a fish, or poisoned by a weed, or nearly driven extinct by antibodies, etc.

 

[rocketdodger]

Why hasn't Cystic Fibrosis been "evolved out"?

I dunno.

Fortunately, my lack of knowledge of a reason for X does not in any way imply that there is no reason for X.

 

[rocketdodger]

And yet you appear to be ruling out that this problem could ever have arisen for any group in our evolutionary history.

Yeah.

Hey, that strong heterosexual sex drive sure worked for the folks on Easter Island !!

 

[Robin]

I dunno.

Fortunately, my lack of knowledge of a reason for X does not in any way imply that there is no reason for X.

And as I pointed out, there is active research on the possibility that being a carrier for CF provided resistance to other diseases.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes it does. For crying in the dark. westprog's statement is as commonsense as can be. It's not saying that it demonstrates a benifit only that it is possible that it has benifits. Of course it's possible.

No it doesn't. I'm not going to educate this entire forum on how evolution works. All sorts of features which are not beneficial persist in organisms for all sorts of reasons. You CANNOT assume that if a characteristic exists then it must have been beneficial. You can't even assume it isn't harmful. Evolution is an IMPERFECT mechanism of design.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And as I pointed out, there is active research on the possibility that being a carrier for CF provided resistance to other diseases.

CF provided resistance to the black death, but only if you only carried ONE copy of the gene (i.e. you were a carrier of CF, not a full-blown victim). It has been of no selective advantage since the 15th century. The fact that carriers do not die means that this defect will persist in the human population for a very long time. It will not get "selected out", regardless of the fact that is both (a) useless and (b) actively harmful if you have two copies. Evolution is an imperfect mechanism of design.

 

[cyborg]

In the sense that it is a "misfiring" natural behaviour. There is an obvious reason why (most) humans have a strong sex drive. It is there to drive us to reproduce.

Reproduction is accidential. A strong sex drive helps increase the accident rate.

Just like everything else in evolved structures.

Apply any flawed moral reasoning to that you want. Just do try to remember that it is a fallacy to pretend that if it is decided to be "immoral" it is "unnatural". Issues of human social interactions just don't affect how nature works. This is where you get it backwards and fail to see that it is all "misfiring" - no exceptions.

 

[Belz...]

Many (most) animals have homosexual and/or non-reproductive individuals.

Not by choice they don't.

Who said anything about choice ? The fact is that some do.

 

[westprog]

No it doesn't. I'm not going to educate this entire forum on how evolution works. All sorts of features which are not beneficial persist in organisms for all sorts of reasons. You CANNOT assume that if a characteristic exists then it must have been beneficial. You can't even assume it isn't harmful. Evolution is an IMPERFECT mechanism of design.

There is a difference between "must be beneficial" and "may be beneficial". It's the same difference between "can't be beneficial" and "may be beneficial". The onus is on the person making the more restrictive statement to justify it.

 

[Belz...]

Nor do working computers and human brains, which is the point.

But how would you know ?

If we're talking about functionality then a pile of non-connected computer parts or an unplugged computer isn't the same as a functioning computer.

But how does that relate to working brains vs working computers ?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but you aren't talking about homosexuality here. The original claim which I disputed was that homosexuality probably exists as a result of group selection.

Well, somehow ants manage with most of their population unable to reproduce. Homosexual relationships in other animal species may lead to better group cohesion.

No advantage at all ?